Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September).

Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership

Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional

Leadership Questionnaire
Petri Nokelainen and Pekka Ruohotie
University of Tampere, Finland

Kirsi Tirri
University of Helsinki, Finland

1. Introduction

School leadership has been for decades and still is one of the most widely studied and
published areas (see, e.g., Day, 2004; Leithwood, 2003). However, leadership as a
social process, affecting both end products and personnel emotions, is seldom studied
(Nokelainen & Ruohotie, 2006). In this sense one interesting direction to look at is
Emotional Intelligence (EI) research that has recently become one of the most
important constructs in modern psychological research. EI refers to the competence to
identify, express and understand emotions, assimilate emotions in thought, and
regulate both positive and negative emotions in one and others (Matthews, Zeidner &
Roberts, 2002).

In this paper, we use the term Emotional Leadership (EL) to describe school
principals’ EI capabilities as leaders. We study with an empirical sample (N = 124)
how Finnish schoolteachers evaluate their principals EL competencies. This paper
focuses on teachers responses, leaving out other school personnel (for example,
cleaners), students and their parents.

The paper is organised as follows: First, we discuss the central concepts of EI

research body. Second, we present an Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)
that operationalises four domains of EI (Goleman, Boyazis & McKee, 2002;
Nokelainen & Ruohotie, 2005, 2006). Third, we study with an empirical sample (N =
806) the construct validity of the ELQ with the following three stages: 1) Comparison
of the mean values and standard deviations of the ELQ items measuring employees’
evaluations on their leaders EL competencies; 2) Examination of the variable
structure of ELQ to test it against the theoretical EI –model; 3) Reliability analysis of
the eighteen EL characteristics. Finally, we conclude the results, discuss the weak
point of this study and suggest guidelines for the future study.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Emotional Intelligence

Howard Gardner’s theory about multiple intelligences (MI) builds on a concept of

‘intelligence’, which he defines as “the ability to solve problems or to create products
that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (Gardner, 1983, p. x). He lists
seven intelligences that meet this criteria: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical,
(3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5), Bodily kinaesthetic, (6) Interpersonal and (7)
Intrapersonal (Gardner, 1983, p. xi). In his newest edition of the MI theory, Gardner

1
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

emphasizes more cultural and contextual factors in the development of seven

intelligences (Gardner, 1999).

Reuven Bar-On developed in 1998 the concept of emotional quotient (EQ) in order to
evaluate person’s emotional intelligence (EI). According to Bar-On (EQ Symposium,
2004), EI is “an array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that
influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and
pressures”. He created the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), which was the first
test of emotional intelligence to be published by a psychological test publisher
(1996). The EQ-i has five domains: (1) intrapersonal, (2) interpersonal, (3)
adaptability, (4) stress management and (5) general mood (Bar-On, 1996; Bar-On,
Tranel, Denburg & Bechara, 2003).

Peter Salovey and John Mayer (1990; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000) suggested
that a new kind of intelligence – ‘emotional intelligence’ (EI) - gives us awareness of
our own and other people’s feelings. According to them (1990), emotional
intelligence is “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor ones
own and others feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this
information to guide ones thinking and action.” Their EI model has five domains: (1)
self-awareness, (2) self-management, (3) motivation, (4) empathy and (5) social skills
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

Daniel Goleman popularised the term emotional intelligence and claimed that EI was
“as powerful and at times more powerful than IQ” in predicting life success (1995,
34). He aimed to show in his studies that emotional and social factors are important
(1995; 1998a), but his “views on EI often went far beyond the evidence available”
(Brackett, Lopes, Ivcevic, Pizarro, Mayer & Salovey, 2004). A recent study showed
that most popular EI and ability measures are only related at r <.22, i.e. about five per
cent of common variance (Brackett & Mayer, 2003).

Goleman (1995) first agreed with Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) five domains of
emotional intelligence, but later his thinking about the dimensions of emotional
intelligence, and their accompanying characteristics, has evolved and simplified into
four domains with eighteen characteristics. In his four-domain model motivation is
merged into other four domains (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002, p. 253-256).

The theory as formulated by Salovey and Mayer (1990; Mayer & Salovey, 1997)
framed EI within a model of intelligence. Goleman’s model formulates EI in terms of
a theory of performance (1998b). Goleman argues (2001) that an EI-based theory of
performance has direct applicability to the domain of work and organizational
effectiveness, particularly predicting excellence in jobs of all kinds, from sales to
leadership. Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee further state (2002, p. 38) that EI
characteristics are not innate talents, but learned abilities. According to them (2002,
5), the emotional task of the leader is primal, i.e., both the original and the most
important act of leadership. The true power of emotional leadership lies on the fact
that people rely on connections with other people (open limbic system) for their
emotional stability and, thus, leader has the power to sway them towards resonance
(to bring out everyone’s best) or dissonance (to drive emotions negatively).

When we compare Goleman et al. (2002) model with Bar-On’s (1996) model, we see
that self-awareness is related to intrapersonal awareness and social awareness is

2
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

related to interpersonal. The major difference is that Goleman et al. (2002) have
merged Bar-On’s “adaptability” and “general mood” into one dimension, namely
“self-management”. On the other hand, Bar-On’s model has no equivalent to
Goleman et al. (2002) models’ “relationship management” domain.

2.2 Measuring Emotional Intelligence

Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner and Richard Roberts (2002) classify EI

measurement instruments into two main categories: performance-based and self-
reported tests. The most prominent performance-based tests are developed by John
Mayer, Peter Salovay, and colleagues (MEIS and MSCEIT, see e.g., Mayer, Salovey
& Caruso, 2000). However, as the purpose of this paper is to present the ELQ
instrument, our focus is on the self-report measures of EI.

Matthews and his colleagues (2002) have done a seminal review of both
performance-based and self-reported EI instruments. They state that there are an
abundance of self-report measures of EI, but only a few, including Reuven Bar-On's
EQ-i, are built on published empirical studies. However, when a factor analysis was
ran on the basis of the normative correlations provided by Bar-On (1996), they
noticed that the reliable variance of the EQ-i can only be attributed to three (instead
of ten or fifteen) constructs: self-esteem, empathy, and impulse control. They
concluded "the close relationships between EQ and various measures of personality
and psychopathology suggest that EI, as assessed by the EQ-i, has actually been
under investigation for decades" (2002, p. 213). Further, referring to work of
Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000), Matthews and his colleagues stated that as
neither EQ-i total score nor factor scores predicted academic achievement or
cognitive ability, there is not enough evidence to justify it as a valid instrument for
personnel selection.

According to Matthews and his colleagues (2002), the lack of research evidence is
also a problem with another popular EI paradigm, Emotional Competence Inventory
(ECI), developed by Daniel Goleman (see, e.g., Goleman, 1995; 1998a). They
evaluated the ECI model at conceptual level, as there was no factor or cluster analysis
supporting the derivation of factors available in the scientific literature. They
concluded that "the ECI is likely .. (to) have some utility" (Matthews et al., 2002,
218). They synthesize that EI self-report measures assess emotional competence
rather than intelligence as they relate to person’s experience of emotion and
behaviour in emotionally challenging circumstances.

Next we take a look at the definition of concept of ’competence’ to understand why

EI self-report inventories, such as Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)
presented in this paper, are actually measuring competence rather than intelligence.

2.3 Self-regulation as a System Concept Managing Emotional Leadership

Competencies

Self-regulation is characterized by Barry Zimmerman and Magda Campillo (2003,

238) as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically
adapted for the attainment of personal goals.” According to Pekka Ruohotie (2000),
self-regulation (or conative constructs) intermediates between person’s cognitive and
affective attributes. He suggests that conative constructs are further divided into

3
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

motivation and volition. Sub-components of motivation include achievement

orientations (ego-orientation, task-orientation, and the need for achievement) and
self-directed orientations (self-efficacy beliefs, control beliefs, and self-esteem). Sub-
components of volition include activity-related control strategies (metacognitive
skills, critical thinking, and management of the resources) and orientation to others
(social ability, empathy, and persuasibility).

Gregory Schraw (1998) points out that an interesting activity-related control strategy,
metacognition (referred in previous paragraph as ‘metacognitive skills’), has two
components: the knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Knowledge of
cognition is about one’s own knowledge and reasoning ability (‘metaknowledge’).
Regulation of cognition is understanding the possibilities and limits of one’s
competencies in specific situations (‘metacompetence’). Components of
metacognition interact with both motivation and emotion (Ruohotie, 2004). Margarita
Limón Luque (2003) uses the terms ‘meta-motivation’ and ‘meta-emotion’ to refer to
the knowledge and regulation of one’s motivation and emotions.

Marja-Liisa Malmivuori states that within self-system processes, emotions activate

various self-regulatory processes at different levels of self-awareness, including self-
reflection (2006). She contrasts automatic affective regulation (low level of control)
to active regulation of affective responses (high level of control). Both features of
affect in the self-regulation process are visible to leaders’ subordinates as his or her
EL competency.

According to Matthews and his colleagues (2002, p. 171), ”emotion may be seen as
both a universal human quality and as an attribute of the individual person,
operationalized through validated self-report measures.” Thus, two different research
strands argue whether emotion is essentialist or evaluative in nature. In this paper, we
view EL dimensions as constructs in their own right and identified with subjective
feelings.

Marc Brackett and his colleagues (2004) characterize general approaches to EI in the
literature as ability models and mixed models. Ability models view EI as a standard
intelligence and argue that EI meets traditional criteria for intelligence. Mixed models
combine the ability conception of EI with numerous self-reported attributes including
optimism, self-awareness, and self-actualisation. (Brackett et al., 2004.) Emotional
Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) was developed to measure leader’s EI as perceived
by his/her subordinates. In the conceptual level, ELQ measures leaders competencies
instead of his/her ‘intelligences’ or ‘abilities’, as the subordinates are expected to be
well aware only of their leaders explicit, procedural abilities (metacompetence), not
that much of their declarative knowledge (metaknowledge).

Theoretical framework is summarized in Figure 1. Figure represents self-regulation

(Zimmerman, 1998, 2000) as a system concept (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000)
managing leadership behaviour through interactive processes between motivation,
volition, emotion, attention, metacognition and action control systems. As Markku
Hannula (2006) points out, self-regulation should be seen to be much more than mere
metacognition.

4
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

Figure 1. Self-regulation as a system concept managing leadership competence

through interactive processes between different control systems. (Adapted from
Zimmerman, 2000, p. 15-16.)

3. Method

3.1 Sample

The total number of participants in this study is 806. The first part of the non-
probability sample consists of 682 adult employees of Finnish companies, vocational
institution, polytechnic institute of higher education and public administration. The
sample was collected from the Southern Finland in 2003 – 2005. Respondents’ age
mean was 40.5 years (SD = 11.7). Three hundred and twenty-four of the respondents
were males (47.5%) and 358 were females (52.5%). Respondents’ education level
was distributed as follows: “Academic degree” (n = 261, 38.3%), “non-academic
degree” (n = 382, 56.0%), and “no degree” (n = 39, 5.7%). Average working
experience in the current job was 5.0 years (SD = 5.4). Total work experience was
13.5 years (SD = 11.2).

The second non-probability sample consists of 124 Finnish teachers from four
comprehensive (n = 84) and two upper secondary (n = 40) schools. The sample was
collected in 2006. All the schools were located in Helsinki, capital of Finland (about
560 000 inhabitants, 9.3 % of the total population of 5 223 442). The respondents’
age was classified into four categories: (1) 21 to 30 years old (n = 18, 14.5%); (2) 31
to 40 years old (n = 25, 20.2%); (3) 41 to 50 years old (n = 34, 27.4%); (4) over 50
years old (n = 39, 31.5%). Seventy per cent of the respondents were females (n = 87,
70.2%), the rest were males (n = 29, 23.4%).

5
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

All the respondents in both samples were personally invited to complete a paper and
pencil version of the ELQ. The first sample answered the first version of the ELQ
containing 18 items, and the second sample answered the current version of the ELQ
containing 51 items. Participants were asked to evaluate their attitude towards the
statements measuring their leaders’ emotional leadership.

3.2 Emotional Leadership Questionnaire

ELQ operationalises Goleman and his colleagues (2002) four domains of emotional
intelligence characteristics: (1) self-awareness, (2) self-management, (3) social
awareness and (4) relationship management. The first version that was presented to
the Finnish industrial and public sector workers contained 18 items, one item
measuring each 18 characteristics. The second version of the ELQ that was presented
to the Finnish schoolteachers contained 51 items (see Appendix for the item level
details).

Respondents’ task was to assess their superior’s EL characteristics on four domains

of the ELQ: (1) self-awareness (3 or 8 items), (2) self-management (6 or 20 items),
(3) social awareness (3 or 7 items) and (4) relationship management (6 or 16 items).
First two dimensions measure how subordinates rank their superior’s personal
characteristics (i.e., self-management capabilities). Two remaining dimensions
measure leader’s social skills (i.e., how they manage interpersonal relationships).
Fifty-one ELQ items were evaluated with a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 (omitted from this shortened version of the
paper) shows the four EL domains and the eighteen associated characteristics.

3.3 Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses contained three stages. First, both the 18 and 51 item versions
of the ELQ (see Table 1) measuring employees’ evaluations on their principals EL
are analysed by mean values and standard deviations. Our motivation is to compare
how subordinates assess their leaders competence on the four different EL domains.
Second, the variable structure of both models is examined with Bayesian dependency
modeling (BDM, Myllymäki, Silander, Tirri & Uronen, 2002) to see if the ELQ is
able to reproduce the theoretical EI model with both empirical samples. Third,
parametric Cronbach’s alpha values are calculated to estimate how well the ELQ
items co-operate within each dimension.

4. Results

Omitted due to space limitations.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we studied with two separate empirical samples the construct validity of
the Emotional Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) that operationalises Goleman’s et al.
(2002) four domains of emotional intelligence. Two non-probability samples
consisted of 682 Finnish workers on various fields (industry, public service,
vocational institution and high school) and 124 Finnish schoolteachers from six

6
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

different capital area schools. Each participant in the first sample was presented an 18
–item version, and in the second sample, a 51 –item version of the ELQ.

The construct validity of the ELQ was tested with the following three stages: 1)
Comparison of the mean values and standard deviations of the eighteen ELQ
characteristics measuring employee groups’ evaluations on their superiors EL
competencies; 2) Examination of the variable structure of the ELQ to test it against
the theoretical EI –model; 3) Reliability analysis of the eighteen EL characteristics.

Results showed that leaders in both samples were 1) self-confident, 2) able to adapt to
new challenges, 3) had a sense of efficacy and 4) able see the upside in the events.

Finnish workers from various fields reported two major qualities in their leaders:
High competency in detecting crucial social networks and reading key power
relationships, and in customer satisfaction. Especially last finding is explicit as client
satisfaction is one of the most crucial components of successful business leadership.

Finnish teachers reported that their principals were successful at keeping their
disruptive emotions and impulses under control. The result of high emotional self-
control was expected, as it is a highly respected leader ability in Finnish work culture.

Principals (second sample) seemed to have a higher level of empathy than the
business leaders (first sample).

Workers in the first sample were the most unsatisfied with their leaders ability to 1)
control their emotions, 2) openly admit mistakes or faults and confront unethical
behaviour in others, 3) attune to a wide range of both visible and hidden emotional
signals, 4) articulate a shared mission in a way that inspires others to follow, 5)
cultivate other people’s abilities, 6) resolve disagreements and 7) generate an
atmosphere of friendly collegiality.

Teachers in the second sample were the most unsatisfied with their principals lack of
1) high personal standards that would drive them to constantly seek improvements in
performance, 2) ability to monitor parents and students satisfaction carefully to
ensure they are getting what they need, 3) skills to resolve disagreements and 4)
ability to generate an atmosphere of friendly collegiality.

Dissatisfaction with their leaders low ability to resolve disagreements and generate
good working atmosphere unites the adult workers of both samples.

The results of BDM showed that in both 18 and 51 item ELQ versions, all the items
measuring the eighteen EL characteristics were selected for the most probable model.
This finding indicates that the theoretical structure of EI is present in these empirical
domains.

The alpha loadings for the eighteen EL characteristics were found to range in the
second sample between .61 and .92, the average reliability estimate was .81. The
results of reliability analysis showed that a 51-item solution was adequate to describe
the four Emotional Leadership domains.

7
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

6. Discussion

Omitted due to space limitations.

References

Bar-On, R. (1996). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional

intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2003). Exploring the
neurological substrate of emotional and social intelligence, Brain, 126, 1790-
1800.
Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulation in learning: finding a
balance between learning and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 417-450). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brackett, M. A., Lopes, P., Ivcevic, Z., Pizarro, D., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P.
(2004). Integrating emotion and cognition: The role of emotional intelligence.
In D. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition:
Integrating perspectives on intellectual functioning (pp. 175-194). Mahawah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.
Campbell, J. P. (1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67(6), 691-700.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Congdon, P. (2001). Bayesian Statistical Modelling. London: Wiley.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner III, J. A. (1994). Percept-Percept Inflation in Micro
organizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67-76.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Third edition. New York:
Harper & Row.
Day, C. (2004). The passion of successful leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 24(4), 425-437.
EQ Symposium (2004). About Reuven BarOn’s Involvement in Emotional
Intelligence. Http://www.cgrowth.com/rb_biolrg.html [16.02.2006]
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century.
New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998a). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November-
December.

8
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building. In C.

Cherniss, & D. Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace (pp. 13-
26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the
power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in Emotions.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 165 – 178.
Heckerman, D., Geiger, D., & Chickering, D. M. (1995). Learning Bayesian
networks: The combination of knowledge and statistical data. Machine Learning,
20, 197–243.
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of Behavioural Research. Third Edition. New
York: CBS College Publishing.
Leithwood, K. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Its Nature, Development, and Impact on
Schools and Students. In M. Brundrett, N. Burton, & R. Smith (Eds.),
Leadership in Education (pp. 103 – 117). London: Sage.
Limón Luque, M. (2003). The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional
conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional
Conceptual Change (pp. 133-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Malmivuori, M-L. (2006). Affect and Self-Regulation. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 63(2), 149-164.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Science
and Myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional
intelligence: The case for ability testing. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker
(Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320-342). New York: Jossey-
Bass.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey &
D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence:
Implications for Educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional
intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence, second
edition (pp. 396-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Myllymäki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., & Uronen, P. (2002). B-Course: A Web-Based
Tool for Bayesian and Causal Data Analysis. International Journal on Artificial
Intelligence Tools, 11(3), 369-387.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Personality & Individual
Differences, 29(6), 1005-1016.
Nokelainen, P., & Ruohotie, P. (2005). Investigating the Construct Validity of the
Leadership Competence and Characteristics Scale. In the Proceedings of
International Research on Work and Learning 2005 Conference. Sydney,
Australia: University of Technology.
Nokelainen, P., & Ruohotie, P. (2006). Empirical Analysis of the Four-domain Model
of Emotional Leadership. Paper presented at European Conference on
Educational Research (ECER), Geneva, Switzerland.
Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2004). Bayesian Methods that Optimize Cross-cultural
Data Analysis. In J. R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie & H. Walberg (Eds.),

9
Nokelainen, P., Ruohotie, P., & Tirri, K. (2007, September). Examining the Construct Validity of the Emotional Leadership
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the ECER, Gent, Belgium.

Cross-cultural Research: Basic Issues, Dilemmas, and Strategies (pp. 141-158).

Hämeenlinna, Finland: RCVE.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ruohotie, P. (2000). Conative Constructs in Learning. In P. R. Pintrich, & P.
Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative Constructs and Self-Regulated Learning (pp. 1-30).
Hämeenlinna, Finland: RCVE.
Ruohotie, P. (2002). Motivation and Self-regulation in Learning. In H. Niemi, & P.
Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical Understandings for Learning in the Virtual
University (pp. 37-72). Hämeenlinna, Finland: RCVE.
Ruohotie, P. (2004). Self-Regulatory Abilities for Professional Learning: A cross-
cultural construct. In J. R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie, & H. Walberg (Eds.),
Cross-cultural Research: Basic Issues, Dilemmas, and Strategies (pp. 159-184).
Hämeenlinna, Finland: RCVE.
Ruohotie, P., & Nokelainen, P. (2000). Beyond the Growth-oriented Atmosphere. In
B. Beairsto, & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Empowering Teachers as Lifelong Learners
(pp. 147–167). Hämeenlinna, Finland: RCVE.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition,
and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional
Science, 26, 113 - 125.
Sloman, S. (2005). Causal Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tirri, K., Komulainen, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2002). Conceptual Modeling
of Self-Rated Intelligence-Profile. Proceedings of the 2nd International Self-
Concept Research Conference. Sydney: University of Western Sydney, Self
Research Center.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation:
An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective
Practice (pp. 1-19). New York: The Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-
Regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem
solvers. In J. E. Davidson, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem
solving (pp. 233-262). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10